The English Question
The English Question
Thanks to the Blog Great Britian not Little England for the link to this report from Publius: The Journal of Federalism by Robert Hazell.
Devolution to Scotland and Wales throws up related questions about the government of
England. Does England need to find its own separate political voice? Does England too need devolution? There is little demand for an English parliament. ‘‘English votes on English laws’’ commands more support but would be impossible to implement in practice. Despite the setback of the Northeast referendum defeat, the future will see further development of regionalism in England. Regional government is the only institutional solution that could help to give England a louder voice and also help to decentralize the government of England. But it is not inevitable. There is no logic in the process of devolution that requires the English to have devolution too.
England is the gaping hole in the devolution settlement. Some argue that devolution will not be complete, and the settlement will not stabilize, until the English Question has been solved. Others believe that England can be left out indefinitely and devolution confined to the Celtic fringe. This article aims to explain the different formulations of the question and to analyse one by one the range of different answers.
The English Question can be divided into the following groups of subquestions:
1. Strengthening England’s place in the Union:
_ Does England need to find its own separate political voice, to rebalance the louder
10 political voice accorded to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland?
_ Could this be supplied by an English parliament, ‘‘English votes on English laws,’’
independence for England?
2. Decentralizing the government of England:
_ Does England too need devolution, to break from the excessive domination of the
15 central government in London?
_ Can this best be supplied by elected regional assemblies, administrative regionalism,
city regions, stronger local government, elected mayors?
3. Continuation of the status quo:
_ Or do the English want none of the above, with no separate representation or
20 political voice, and no share in devolution either?
These questions have come onto the political agenda as a result of devolution to
Scotland and Wales. They are big issues, issues that will determine the future shape
and nature of the United Kingdom as much as the future government of England.
Devolution has already profoundly changed the United Kingdom’s system of
government, but it extends to only 15 percent of the population. England, with
85 percent of the population, for the moment is left out. If the English ever choose to opt in, the choice they make will have huge consequences not only for the government of England but for the whole future of the Union.
As devolution was a top down exercise imposed and assisted by central government, it is wrong to now look for a grass roots movement calling for the English to opt in, the English preferred the status quo that was as part of one union, this union has now been partially dismantled.
This erroneous argument is followed through into the rest of the report; Hazell, it seems is quite happy to accept the results of the governments top down forcing of the issue in Scotland and Wales, but now asks the English people to start a grass roots movement in order for the English people to exhibit a desire for devolution.
Different Versions of the English Question
Improving the Government of England or Strengthening England’s
Place in the Union? The ‘‘purely English’’ version of the English Question asks: How can we improve the government of England? Interest in regionalism as a possible solution goes back to Fawcett (1919) and Cole (1947) (Tomaney, forthcoming). It springs from long- standing concerns about the poor performance of many of England’s regions,especially in the North, and the difficulties faced by central government in finding effective policy instruments and institutions to drive up regional economic
performance. Successive governments, Labour in the 1970s and Conservative in the1980s, had given up on local government as providing the solution because of its lack of political will and lack of effective capacity. More and more functions were
transferred from local government to centrally controlled public bodies, many
operating on a larger scale at regional rather than local level. In 1994 the Conservative government led by John Major took regionalism a step further by bringing together the regional outposts of four central government departments into new government offices for the regions, with common boundaries based on the Treasury’s eight standard regions of the Northeast, Northwest, Yorkshire and Humberside, West
Midlands, East Midlands, East Anglia, Southeast, and Southwest.
English masses show little concern about devolution in Scotland and Wales and no demand for devolution for themselves (Curtice 2001, 2006, forthcoming). In November 2004 that was dramatically confirmed by the ‘‘No’’ vote in the Northeast regional referendum, when the voters in the Northeast region rejected the government’s proposals for an elected regional assembly by four to one, despite strong campaigning by the deputy prime minister in this solidly Labour region.
The rejection of the government’s proposals is not evidence that that there is little concern about the devolution process, rather it is evidence that the governments proposals for regionalisation were unacceptable.
Prof. Hazell offers us some alternative roads forward and looks at the support both in elite circles and in the general public and the likelihood that any of them may be adopted.
An English Parliament which has low support and an English parliament would risk being as overburdened as Westminster and equally remote. More on this later
English votes on English laws which has good support 60% in England and 50% in Scotland which might be because it was Conservative party policy
English independence which has negligible support. Hard to envisage England unilaterally declaring independence from rest of the United Kingdom
Decentralize government of England regional assemblies
Hazell claims this has a 25% support with the public, considering the only area that was allowed a referendum; the NE rejected the proposals by a 4/1 margin I cannot see how this figure can be supported, opinion polling perhaps, but that ignores the NE result which showed the polling to be totally out of touch with the real answer at the referendum. And a point Hazell makes later on the issue of Local mayors.
Administrative regionalism
This is regionalisation by the back door ie. Regional chambers exist, and powers and functions slowly growing and of course is Labour party policy with little public knowledge.
City regions
this has minimal support and apparently need not cover whole of England
Revive local government
Politicians all pay lip service; no party has strong proposals Public seem to share some of national politicians’ mistrust of local government competence
Elected mayors
Low. Very little support among local councillors High in opinion polls, less when tested in local referenda Might also be linked to city regions.
Having posed his questions the professor now attempts to answer them;
An English Parliament
An English parliament would appear to be a neat solution to the fundamental asymmetry in the devolution arrangements. It would create a federation of the four historic nations of the United Kingdom, each with its parliament enjoying significant devolved powers.
But it is one thing to create such a federation, quite another to make it work. The fundamental difficulty is the sheer size of England by comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. England, with four-fifths of the population, would be hugely dominant.
On most domestic matters the English parliament would be more important than the Westminster parliament. No federation has operated successfully where one of the units is so dominant.
I find these arguments to be less than compelling, of course the English parliament would be more important on domestic issues than Westminster, that is the idea behind devolution in the first place. Is the Scottish parliament not more important than Westminster on domestic issues.
If the size issue is important and means the new federation would not work then how are we to understand the EU were Germany with 82.5 million and France with 59.9 million massively outnumber Malta with 398,534 or Cyprus with 780,133. So how is it that an English parliament would unbalance a proposed UK federation when this does not seem to matter at the EU level.
Professor Hazell does make one good point about an English Parliament here that he seems to dismiss on other points and that is; “Perhaps because of this lack of elite support, mass support for the idea of an English parliament remains low and shows no sign of increasing.†Not only is there no elite political support, but this follows through into the main stream media, there is also no coverage for an English parliament, in fact the only real coverage is for regionalisation regional assemblies.
English Votes on English Laws: Westminster as a Proxy for an English Parliament
In contrast, English votes on English laws is a proposition that does command some
elite support and considerable mass support. Polling data consistently show that
between 50 and 60 percent of people in England agree that Scottish MPs should no
longer be allowed to vote on English laws now that Scotland has its own parliament
It seems only logical and fair, since English MPs can no longer vote on matters devolved to Scotland. Even a majority of Scots support restricting the voting rights of Scottish MPs in this way (Curtice 2001, 234). But the difficulties of implementing such a policy seem insuperable, at both a technical and a political level.
Proffor Hazell says; The technical difficulty is identifying those English laws on which only English MPs would be allowed to vote Strictly speaking there is no such thing as an English law, in the sense of a Westminster statute that applies only to England.
That is a point, however it would be quite feasible to note which particular laws did not apply to Scotland because that power had been devolved to the Scotish parliament.
On the political front Hazell sees even more problems;
“Proponents of English votes on English laws tend to underestimate just what a huge change would be involved. It would create two classes of MP, ending the traditional reciprocity whereby all members can vote on all matters. It would effectively create a parliament within a parliamentâ€
Well yes of course it would be a huge change, but then the problem has been brought about by the devolution process itself a huge change, which has created a problem in that Scottish MPs can vote on proposals which have no affect on their own constituents. So we already have two classes of MP`s those that are accountable and those that are not.
The U.K. government might not be able to command a majority for its English business, leading to great political instability.
I do not see this as a great problem if not enough English MP`s are prepared to vote for a policy that only affects England then that policy fails.
English votes on English laws would suddenly become a critical issue if (as
may happen) after a future election Labour formed a government with a narrow
majority and depended on Scottish and Welsh MPs to get its legislation through.
Well this is exactly the point is it not, if the Labour party has to rely on Scots and Welsh MP`s voting for something that does not affect them then that is also wrong.
Hazlle says that :
The Conservatives have fought two elections on a platform of English votes on English laws (in 2001 and 2005) and have tried to arouse the English. The English have failed to respond. Although opinion polls show majority support for English votes on English laws, it is not a high-salience issue. It would become salient only if the government used the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs to force controversial or unpopular measures upon the English. Its salience would depend on how the media reported parliamentary votes upon the issue.
This issue was not at the forefront of either of the two elections mentioned, also the labour party is in power at Westminster only because of Scottish and Welsh votes.
Two Other Possible Answers to Votes on English Laws
Reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs to reflect their reduced role at Westminster after devolution and more proportional voting system.
Neither of these options offer an answer to the west Lothian question, they only reduce the affects.
Independence for England
English independence is the third and most extreme institutional solution that would
ensure the English have a louder political voice. If it is impossible to give the English a political voice within the Union, the argument goes, they need to break free from the Union and establish their own English state.
This idea is dismissed out of hand because it has no elite support. However if the idea is to dismantle the UK as a political unit then perhaps support for this option might well be something that will grow in the future, especially if support were to grow for Scottish independence.
If the English Are Denied a Louder Political Voice, Does English Nationalism Need Some Other Outlet?
Identity and institutions mirror each other. Englishness is commingled with Britishness in the English people’s sense of identity and in their political institutions. To combine Englishness with Britishness is not necessarily a sign of confusion. It is a reflection of reality. We cannot readily disentangle Englishness from Britishness in our history or in our institutions. It is better to accept them for what they are, deeply intertwined, and to allow the English to celebrate being English and British. Their political allegiance is to Westminster.
There is a lot in this particular observation, the English as a rule do consider themselves British, the problem is that Britian itself is changing, and it is those forced changes which will put the English in a position of having to choose, would they prove willing to tolerate these political anomalies and suffer rough justice in their parliament, at the hands of the Scots and Welsh MP`s who do not have to face the consequences of their votes in their own constituencies.
The fact that the English consider Westminster as their parliament is very much dependant on that parliament being the “one parliament†for the whole of Britain, that is no longer the case, if the concept is Britishness is to be devalued, as this becomes ever more evident, then the English may well not be relied upon to accept the situation.
Elected Regional Assemblies
At the elite level, elected regional assemblies have been supported by Labour and the
Liberal Democrats but opposed by the Conservatives and by the business community.
Mass support has always been much harder to gauge, with some opinion surveys
suggesting quite high levels of support.
Then in November 2004 came the referendum result in the Northeast. The region
had been chosen by the government as the most likely to vote ‘‘Yes’’ to a regional
assembly because of its strong sense of regional identity, proximity to Scotland,
remoteness from London, and long history as a Labour heartland. Yet the
government’s proposals for an elected regional assembly were decisively rejected by
four to one, on a surprisingly high turnout of 48 percent.
This of course the Governments preferred option and the one that has already been set in motion by the establishments of a system of administrative regionalism. The people of the North East put a spoke in those plans to roll out elected assemblies. But of course this will not stop them passing ever more powers to the regional quangos in the hope that they can point to them in future referendum as being the de facto local government so we will be offered a choice of having elected representation at this level. We are already seeing more moves in this direction with the “restructuring†of police forces and fire Brigades.
Administrative regionalism describes the growing array of unelected government bodies that operate at the regional level. A dense network of policy actors has gradually grown up in each region around the three main pillars of the government office, regional development agency, and regional chamber. The government offices for the regions have become the main regional outposts of central government, with representatives from nine government departments. The regional development agencies have seen big increases in their budgets for economic development since their creation in 1999.
City Regions and Elected Mayors
City regions, sometimes linked to elected mayors, have never quite made it on to the political agenda….. Finally, some of the arguments advanced against city regions are similar to those advanced against regional assemblies: that they are essentially technocratic, of interest to elites not ordinary people, and at best a patchwork solution.
Neither do they answer the major problems caused by devolution.
Strengthening Local Government
The main alternative to regionalism as a policy solution for excessive centralization is to restore powers and functions to local government. Local government has become increasingly the creature of central government. The English structure of local government, with large county councils and smaller districts in rural areas and unitary 30 local authorities in most towns and cities, has been subjected to successive reorganizations since the 1970s that have left it battered and demoralized.
Quite, in its surge toward regional government or the break up of England if you prefer, central government has done everything it can to make life difficult for local government instead of supporting local government it has been steadily denuded of its powers which. There is very little likelihood of this trend changing because to do so would be to offer an alternative to the governments desire to break up England into regions.
Regionalism Remains the Best Answer to the English Question
Regional government in England is the only solution that offers an answer to both
versions of the English Question. It could help to give England a louder voice within
the Union, and it would help to decentralize the government of England. But it could
achieve the first aim, of giving England a louder voice, only if there were elected assemblies with strong powers and functions. The stronger the better. The stronger the powers, the louder would be England’s voice within the Union, because they would be a closer match for the much greater (although varying) powers given to the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Well there is a surprise! I just did not see this coming.
But Regionalism Is Not a Complete Answer
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have powers to make laws in their devolved
assemblies and substantial executive powers over major public services such as health, education, and local government. English regional assemblies would have had no lawmaking power and no executive powers to speak of. The difference can be seen in
terms of their budgets. The budget of the Northeast assembly would have been thirty
times smaller than those of the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales. The
tiny budget reflects its strategic role, shorn of responsibility for any major public
service. It would require a revolution in thinking about regional government for it to be granted responsibility for a major public service with a big budget such as health or education. Such devolved responsibilities are not uncommon in the regions of Europe, but they are currently beyond the imagination of politicians in England.
Arrr.. the EU at last gets a mention, so far this report has not even touched on the EU involment with regionalisation, or the EU policy for regionalisation or the destruction of the nation state in favour of an EU of the regions.
How Might Regionalism Develop in Future?
Professor Hazell suggests there are three things which could influence the regionalisation development, “The first, top-0 down accelerator would be if the government decided to throw its weight more strongly behind regionalismâ€
I do not know how much stronger the professor thinks the government could be! it has ignored the referendum in the NE and is continuing its policy of creating more regional quangos as fast as it can.
The second, bottom-up set of forces would be a slower-burning fuse. It would depend upon the constitutional conventions that sprang up in five of the English regions to make plans for elected regional assemblies not giving up following the defeat in the Northeast but redoubling their efforts. Following the precedent of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, they might decide to come forward with their own proposals for a stronger set of powers and functions. They would need to be prepared for a seriously long march. In Scotland it took eighteen years. And although the Scots may not have appreciated it at the time, the eighteen years of Conservative rule at Westminster helped to fan the flames of devolution in Scotland. Another prolonged period of Conservative rule could similarly help to rekindle the cause of devolution in the northern regions of England.
The last point is taken care of by the third development which could have an effect on the regionalisation policy and possible stop it dead “Election of a Conservative government would stop the process,†This would seem to be a call to arm for all of us who stand against break up of England as a political unit.
To be honest although I find that Professor Hazell makes some interesting points, I feel that he dismisses the likely outfall, as the problems caused by devolution become more evident to the English people. This present government is perhaps storing up problems for its chances of re-election by pretending to ignore those problem, when Tony Blair says of the West Lothian question, “it has gone away†perhaps he is speaking more in hope than anything else.
Certainly the problems are being kept below the general horizon, even as the moves are being made to enhance the regional assemblies, but there are ever more of us who although we would prefer a British parliament for Britian, are willing to think about the alternatives if the Scots and the Welsh do wish to divorce from the union, and we are not thinking regional assemblies offer any sort answer for the voice of England. Regional Assemblies only make sense in an EU of the regions, when the Westminster parliament no longer has power and is only a talking shop.
I say that Professor Hazell has ignored the Elephant in the room the EU, that is the case in this particular report but elsewhere he said;
In practice many devolved competences have an EU dimension, including regional economic development, environment, agriculture and rural affairs, fisheries, and, in Scotland, justice and home affairs.
Then of course the whole idea of an independent Scotland was dependant on the EU, because the Scots were not calling for independence, but for independence within the EU. This is a totally different kettle of fish, take the EU out of the equation and Scotland would not be calling for independence in the first place. So it can be suggested that the existence of EU is the basic cause of the moves for devolution, and certainly for the break up of England.
We can debate the devolution process but not in isolation to the EU plans for a United States of Europe, or a Europe EU of the regions, which is separate and distinct from a Europe of nation states. Everything that has happened so far in the devolution process has been in line with the regionalisation of Britian and England as agreed at an EU level.
An English Parliament, English Votes on English Laws: Westminster as a Proxy for an English Parliament, Reviving local government, is just not part of those plans. In fact the only agreed plans are for the break up of England into regions this is something that this government is continuing to do by the back door.
